Quote from: James Gillen;899906Or, the rich are what the rest of us would be if we had money.

JG

Speak for yourself, kemosabe. Not everyone is Donald Trump. Some folks make or have their money without becoming total dicks.  This whole aristocracy aspect implies to me that one is born into it. One of us wins the lotto, there's a good chance we're not gonna start dick waving, because if you never had it and get it, you understand the other side of the bargain. Some rich prick who's always had it has no conception of the alternative. Maybe hubris needs to be on the aristocrat list, too, now that I think of it.

The other side of "entitled" is what in fancy-talk we call noblesse oblige - that with privileges come responsibilities. In anglo-saxon poetry they had kennings, poetic metaphors, and for "king" a kenning was "ring-giver" - because one aspect of what was considered to be a good king was that he gave away his wealth to those who distinguished themselves in his service.

And this is something players in my campaigns learn quickly: nobody will give you anything if you're a rude cunt to them.

Quote from: cranebump;899907Bullshit. Sometimes you get lucky by being born into it, which is how it certainly worked back in the day (and still works to extent right now).

As @Ravenswing said above, they'll differ.  The third son of a provincial lord may be your witless duck - equivalent to a modern trust fund socialite. But - I said you don't get to run society while not understanding your world.  I'd say the modern equivalent is being CEO of Apple, Google etc.  Whatever you think of those people, they ain't stupid, and you don't drift into those roles by accident.  I guess I'm heading here to some extent top aristocrats/courtiers as geeks. Incredibly talented at court politics or diplomacy or warfare but not knowing the cost of milk.

Quote from: cranebump;899907Anyooo, out of touch means they can't comprehend how the common folk live, because they've never had to worry about, oh, say, their next meal. in modern terms, it's not knowing the cost of a gallon of milk, because you never have to buy groceries yourself.

Active aristocrats as are the norm in most D&D settings (eg Greyhawk) can't afford to be out of touch with the wellbeing of their subjects, from a management perspective - if the peasants starve the lord suffers too. They'll know if the peasants can't afford milk or whatever.

Even today in the UK, IME rural aristocrats don't seem 'out of touch' to me, they spend a lot of time managing their estates. Urban aristocracy can be different but IME often still have a sense of duty which often leads them into politics. And the British officer class is still aristocrat to a large extent, certainly in some regiments.

Quote from: cranebump;899910Speak for yourself, kemosabe. Not everyone is Donald Trump. Some folks make or have their money without becoming total dicks.  This whole aristocracy aspect implies to me that one is born into it. One of us wins the lotto, there's a good chance we're not gonna start dick waving, because if you never had it and get it, you understand the other side of the bargain. Some rich prick who's always had it has no conception of the alternative. Maybe hubris needs to be on the aristocrat list, too, now that I think of it.

Your view is basically the exact opposite of my experience of actual aristocrats, a class the USA does not have. The American rich are bourgeoisie (or occasionally from working class background) not aristocrats, and behave very differently. With the USA not having a nobility there is no sense of noblesse oblige.

Quote from: cranebump;899861Regardless of the time period, I'd keep one word in mind when RP'ing a member of the aristocracy--"Entitled." A second thing? "Out of touch" (with society, reality, what have you). A 3rd aspect I guess would be "connected."

That said, I really don't know how to be accurate to medieval times. The thing that sums this up for me is how the upper crust treats meals in modern society.  

For a poor person: "Did you have anything to eat?"
For the middle class: "Did you get enough to eat?"
Upper crust: "Was the food presented well?"

...no, just no, try to imagine a konung behaving the way you described and you'll see why:D!

What you described would apply to a small slice of aristocrats in a limited period of time and limited part of space, and it's not accidental that this was followed by a fucking revolution!

Quote from: Ravenswing;899904With the stream of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, I think an important point's being missed: there's no such thing as a "standard" aristocrat.  Different times, places, milieus, an aristo's going to be different in an era of stability, wealth and peace than in one of strife and societal upheaval.  Even within a particular paradigm, they're people, and people differ from one another.

But...but...but...the Aristocrat class is based on something, right;)?

More lace. It functions like more cowbell. It's the only cure to my fever, more lace.

I'm broadly in the lords are 9th level camp, and I try to model "aristocrats" in a feudal society after the fighting lords of the early medieval period.  So, actually competent, not upper-class twit of the year contenders, jealous of their traditional rights and prerogatives to the point of going to war over them if they're infringed on, probably the only person with a chair when holding their own court (I understand thrones and crowns were originally used by any lord at their own court, not just kings), but also bound by tradition and pride to provide food to the poor and travelers and give gifts to their peers and followers.

None of the above requires making people bow and scrape!  There was a shift in manners over only a couple of centuries from "stand straight and look a king in the eye when talking to him" to bowing or kneeling.  I figure a fighting aristocracy is still in the first stage, especially if they're talking to a monster slayer as most D&D PCs are, even if they could kick the PC's ass.

I think one place GMs go astray is in assuming the PCs aren't themselves noble or knighted unless it's specifically established.  In our world, an unattached warrior with a warhorse he knew how to ride, full armor and good weapons he knew how to use was more likely a younger son of a lord out seeking his own fortune on the battlefield than a runaway peasant.  And the church was disproportionately noble, especially the higher ranks, either by outright purchase of a position or just the perks of having a better education and connections.  So by the time you're positing a D&D party of an armored fighter, a priest and a scholarly wizard I kind of figure they've all got at least a hand on the bottom rung of that ladder of nobility rather than all being jumped-up peasants who need to fall to their knees when they see a landed noble.  I'd just spot them "younger son of a younger son, won't inherit" unless they don't want it, in which case they've still basically faked it till they've made it if they've got a character class and equipment.

Someone mentioned knights' training already, and for me that feeds into lords being 9th level.  I'd call someone trained from a young age that way as easily a 3rd level fighter on being knighted (maybe 5th if you're running a later edition and going to 20th level), and higher if they're a tournament champion and/or tested on the battlefield.  I don't feel bound to make all knights and lords everywhere 1st level characters just because they haven't come up as dungeon-crawlers.  (Though I also imagine they would get down into dungeons if those were a thing, especially all those younger sons trying to win their own glory and wealth.)

Quote from: Dave R;899993I think one place GMs go astray is in assuming the PCs aren't themselves noble or knighted unless it's specifically established.  In our world, an unattached warrior with a warhorse he knew how to ride, full armor and good weapons he knew how to use was more likely a younger son of a lord out seeking his own fortune on the battlefield than a runaway peasant.  And the church was disproportionately noble, especially the higher ranks, either by outright purchase of a position or just the perks of having a better education and connections.  So by the time you're positing a D&D party of an armored fighter, a priest and a scholarly wizard I kind of figure they've all got at least a hand on the bottom rung of that ladder of nobility rather than all being jumped-up peasants who need to fall to their knees when they see a landed noble.  I'd just spot them "younger son of a younger son, won't inherit" unless they don't want it, in which case they've still basically faked it till they've made it if they've got a character class and equipment.

Yeah, in my Karameikos campaign that's how I run it, PCs are knights/gentry/nobility by default. One PC actually inherited a Barony (at level after her uncle died of old age and her father was murdered by her friend/renegade PC. Other PCs achieve Baronial or in one case Count rank through accomplishments, marriage etc, usually at level 9+.

Quote from: Anselyn;899946As @Ravenswing said above, they'll differ.  The third son of a provincial lord may be your witless duck - equivalent to a modern trust fund socialite. But - I said you don't get to run society while not understanding your world.  I'd say the modern equivalent is being CEO of Apple, Google etc.  Whatever you think of those people, they ain't stupid, and you don't drift into those roles by accident.  I guess I'm heading here to some extent top aristocrats/courtiers as geeks. Incredibly talented at court politics or diplomacy or warfare but not knowing the cost of milk.

Quote from: cranebump;899907Bullshit. Sometimes you get lucky by being born into it, which is how it certainly worked back in the day (and still works to extent right now).

Anyooo, out of touch means they can't comprehend how the common folk live, because they've never had to worry about, oh, say, their next meal. in modern terms, it's not knowing the cost of a gallon of milk, because you never have to buy groceries yourself.

I think there is room for both types (talented CEO or incompetent twit), but also a lot more options.

One option is that an aristocrat might be more qualified because of granted advantages rather than inborn talent. So, a noble's son might be well-fed his whole life, and given a thorough education from literacy to weapons training. He might well be a powerful warrior because of this - brave and true. A peasant kid might suffer from malnutrition and have had to work in the fields with no education. So the noble's son isn't incompetent - but he's only more qualified because of the advantages he was born with.

It's important to note that this is a game, played for fun. In the modern day, it sticks in a lot of people's craw to be in a system where people are unequal. Similarly, a lot of people don't like to have disease, infection, rape, or slavery in their games - even though historically those were common.

Quote from: Anselyn;899872"Entitled" appears to be an American dog-whistle-politics rant-worth knee-jerker at the moment.

For me, "Entitled" for fantasy nobles is their livelong experience of being on the top of the social heap colors all their interactions.

Even the Lawful Good Count who is kind and good to his servants and does all he can for his peasants still expects them to treat him as a noble and he expects them to act according to their station. He may not start screaming "off with their heads" if PCs act against their station, but it will negatively affect his opinion of them.  It will be harder for them to gain his trust and support and he may only work with them in great crisis.

Quote from: Anselyn;899872Finally, I'd say to everyone: Brush Up Your Shakespeare.

Or you can skip the Bard of Avon and go directly to Black Adder!!

Anselyn makes a very good point though. If you want authenticity, go back to sources written by authors who actually dealt with actual nobles.
Same with your Greek plays as well for those running Bronze Age nobles.

Quote from: S'mon;899950Your view is basically the exact opposite of my experience of actual aristocrats, a class the USA does not have. The American rich are bourgeoisie (or occasionally from working class background) not aristocrats, and behave very differently. With the USA not having a nobility there is no sense of noblesse oblige.

We have lots of generational wealth in the USA. We have lots of "old money" families, especially in the North East and the South. The class system is alive and well, much less than in the 19th century, but it exists.

As for "nobless oblige", that's also thing in the USA. Charity functions are a big thing with generational wealth families, and its the main way for new money to make its way into the social circle of the old wealth. Instead of fighting dragons, the old wealth opens libraries, museums, and maybe soup kitchens.

Instead of titles, American nobles have last names.

Quote from: Dave R;899993***makes many great points ***

Dave R, those were excellent ideas in your post. Thank you!!
Please post more around here!!!

Quote from: jhkim;900034I think there is room for both types (talented CEO or incompetent twit), but also a lot more options.

Agreed. Cookie cutter nobles are a bad idea, just as any cookie cutter NPC is a bad idea. The more you flesh them out, the better.

IME, the problem is not so much how to play aristocrats.

It is more likely to come from a player with what somebody (Pundit?) called " mall fantasy" expectations running into a setting run with social ranks and rules that actually matter.
Or from a player who just loves those Chaotic Good rebel types in a party of characters with more hierarchical or pragmatic instincts.
What wouldn't be a big deal in a dungeon focused game might be a major factor in a game with more town and castle stuff going on.
(Not a knock on dungeon crawls! I love dungeons, and I am quite happy smashing/fleeing monsters and springing traps at the  tabletop.)

I've only ever had one player who often plays defiant, square peg egalitarian rebels.
I simply told him " your character may be regarded as a criminal, an idiot, or a crazy person by many people if she expresses these opinions in an overt manner. Serious negative consequences may result."

I my recent campaigns, I have assigned or rolled social rank, Unearthed Arcana style, for all PCs. I let them know straight away where they stand.
Feedback has been positive.

As far as RPing NPC aristocrats, a lot depends on the family, the culture, and the individual. Some are just, some are corrupt. Some polite, some crude and arrogant.

RE aristocratic superiority


I assume that superior nutrition, training, and opportunities all add up to a dispropionate number of noblemen being fighter class types.
Being able to afford better gear helps, too.

If the typical soldier is a 0 Level/ normal man type in a padded jack and carrying a spear, while his nob counterpart has a horse, a lance, a coat of mail and better to hit ( weapon specialization, if used) that's significant. Even if the nobleman is only first level.

But I imagine a disproportionate number of thief class characters come from the lower orders. Runaway serfs, beggars, alleymen, fisher-cum-smugglers, etc.

Quote from: Gormenghast;900059It is more likely to come from a player with what somebody (Pundit?) called " mall fantasy"

I call that "a Ren Faire with magic."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;900099I call that "a Ren Faire with magic."

D&D doesn't have enough boobies to be Ren Faire with magic.

And Ren Faire does have real magic. Physics alone isn't keeping those "ample bosoms" from exploding out of their corsets!